Congrats Wisconsin! Hiding a gun, no problem!

[Nekowolf]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/122593678.html

Wisconsin's Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill through. What does this bill do? Anyone over 21 who isn't a felon or unable to possess firearms can carry concealed weapons. Without training or a permit.

Oh yes, that's real awesome. Now, granted, I won't say it'll skyrocket violence. But it sure as hell makes it easier. You cannot argue about that; no need for training or a permit, just buy the gun and you're good.

Now I do love this part:

"because it would allow guns in day care centers, churches and domestic abuse shelters.

Under the bill, the owners of those facilities could ban guns if they posted signs saying they weren't allowed."

IT'S FUCKING CONCEALED.

I may not supposed to walk into a Burger King with a dildo, but I'm sure I can sneak it in without anyone knowing if I hide it somewhere! And when's the last time you saw a daycare or a church with metal detectors?

Basically, the bill is pointless at best, dangerous at worst, because people get a bloody hard-on for guns and want to wave their boomsticks around like flags on the Fourth of July. I don't give a damn what kind of argument someone might make against stricter gun control, but if it can stop at least one mass shooting that leaves six, or ten, or twelve people dead just because they happened to be hanging around, then that's a damn good enough reason, because there are people who should be kept away from guns like pedophiles away from schools, but laws like these keep making it all the easier for them to get a hold of the very thing they should not ever have.

[Robodl95]

What did you have before? Was there a total ban on concealed weapons or did they just get rid of the permit requirement? I don't think there's anything wrong with concealed weapons but there should definitely be some sort of permit or training required.

[Mistermook]

Actually I'm on the opposite side of things. I think there's nothing wrong with firearms, as long as they're not able to be concealed in any manner. If I carry around a bazooka it's big enough that everyone within spitting distance can tell I've got a friggin' bazooka on my shoulder - I'm a dangerous, possibly crazy person if I'm wandering into daycare centers with my bazooka and everyone can tell that immediately unless I'm simultaneous going to the effort of convincing everyone "Hey, it probably looks like I'm dangerous, but I've got a good reason for this bazooka..." There's no walking up to someone until they're within "I can't miss range" with a pistol. There's no "ah hah! it's a switchblade!" moment. Large weapons aren't less dangerous than concealable ones, but concealable weapons aren't the weapons of a "militia" either. You can lug around your bazooka to rob banks with, but you're not going run away into a crowd and disappear with the thing on you.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i'm more for no guns, at all, ever. for anyone. even police. think of how much more difficult it would make random acts of violence. think of how much more creative, and less damaging, a person would have to be, to live in a society with no guns. want to hunt? bow and arrow. want to defend yourself? take martial arts, or learn how to wield mace and a switchblade. you can still inflict a fair lot of damage on others without a gun, but youd have to have the know-how to do it, and heaven forbid someone have to learn a skill to earn a kill.

youd see the end of drive-bys, of school shootings, of randomly murdered pets, and im willing to bet youd see a marginal drop in violent crime. people would have to actually get off their asses and use their brains to inflict harm. but of course, we'd need a certain level of self-discipline that i feel america severely lacks, in order to put such a ban to work.

but of course i see that violence as a whole would not stop completely, but it would make violence more difficult to act out in a potentially fatal (and at times with more than one victim killed) way.

[Robodl95]

i'm more for no guns, at all, ever. for anyone. even police. think of how much more difficult it would make random acts of violence. think of how much more creative, and less damaging, a person would have to be, to live in a society with no guns. want to hunt? bow and arrow. want to defend yourself? take martial arts, or learn how to wield mace and a switchblade. you can still inflict a fair lot of damage on others without a gun, but youd have to have the know-how to do it, and heaven forbid someone have to learn a skill to earn a kill.

youd see the end of drive-bys, of school shootings, of randomly murdered pets, and im willing to bet youd see a marginal drop in violent crime. people would have to actually get off their asses and use their brains to inflict harm. but of course, we'd need a certain level of self-discipline that i feel america severely lacks, in order to put such a ban to work.

but of course i see that violence as a whole would not stop completely, but it would make violence more difficult to act out in a potentially fatal (and at times with more than one victim killed) way.
How on earth could you outlaw guns? The fact is that it's impossible to eliminate certain things (like drugs) If police couldn't have guns then how would they defend themselves against opponents with guns? Are you proposing outlawing guns in the military too? Martial arts gets you nowhere against guns (and as far as self defense an old man with a gun can stay safe while an old man using martial arts can be taken down fast by a young opponent). There are lots of easy ways to kill without a skill, stabbings, drowning, etc. Your idea is great but unfortunately this is the real world where things like that don't work out. (and I would like to keep my 2nd amendment rights thank you very much)

[Tempscire]

I may not supposed to walk into a Burger King with a dildo, but I'm sure I can sneak it in without anyone knowing if I hide it somewhere!
And if you sneak in a dildo and never whip it out, so that no one knows you have it the entire time you're there, does it matter that you have it? Someone who wants to shoot up the place isn't going to care no matter the law says about how they can carry, and someone who just wants to responsibly carry around a gun is not going to make any trouble.

you can still inflict a fair lot of damage on others without a gun, but youd have to have the know-how to do it, and heaven forbid someone have to learn a skill to earn a kill.
Not that much skill, especially if you're taking someone by surprise. Most people do not carry guns or, indeed, any kind of conventional weapon. That would be unlikely to change if all guns were outlawed, therefore it's safe to assume that, in terms of actual defense, it wouldn't be that difficult to take someone by surprise.

And yeah, I'd much rather be bludgeoned by a mace than shot. That sounds awesome.

youd see the end of drive-bys, of school shootings, of randomly murdered pets, and im willing to bet youd see a marginal drop in violent crime.
You expect criminals to obey a no-gun-ownership law more than they would obey a don't-murder-people law? All that outlawing guns would accomplish is take away guns from the responsible owners. Oh, and gun casualties would drop, but I bet you'd see a sharp rise in knifings/beatings/poisonings/etc.

All that said, I do wish they'd require a permit, with training courses being necessary to obtain the permit. It's not an unreasonable demand and would not unduly infringe on anyone's "right to bear arms."

[SuicidiaParasidia]

How on earth could you outlaw guns? The fact is that it's impossible to eliminate certain things (like drugs) If police couldn't have guns then how would they defend themselves against opponents with guns? Are you proposing outlawing guns in the military too? Martial arts gets you nowhere against guns (and as far as self defense an old man with a gun can stay safe while an old man using martial arts can be taken down fast by a young opponent). There are lots of easy ways to kill without a skill, stabbings, drowning, etc. Your idea is great but unfortunately this is the real world where things like that don't work out. (and I would like to keep my 2nd amendment rights thank you very much)

again, refer to that it requires a certain amount of discipline that our culture sure as hell does nothing to put into effect. hell, personal responsibility is a hurtle for americans as it is. my suggestion mostly pertains to more advanced cultures.

japan, for example. very strict gun laws, notice how much gun-related violence goes on there? i dare you to research. so, yes, it is possible, but not without some effort and unity.
i dont think you understand what a complete ban means. no guns, for anyone. you do not get to keep what guns you posses, and if you arent going to give them up, you subjugate yourself to negative attention of your peers and criminal charges. in such a scenario, i find it highly laughable that no other technique can stop a mental gun-wielding individual; tranq darts, tazers, tear gas, bulletproof glass and vests do still exist. if everyone were to unite against guns, and a few remained that would not let go of their guns, well...i highly doubt it would amount to much.
as for martial arts, i was talking about if nobody had guns and you found yourself in a threatening situation, you could use such things to defend yourself. maybe i just wasnt specific enough, but it wasnt intended as advice in a "gun vs gun-less" situation. more along the lines of "gun-less vs gun-less".

Japan prohibits gun possession by citizens except for shotguns and single-shot rifles for hunting or sports. Semiautomatic and full automatic weapons are restricted to military and police. Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test. Police check on the owner once every three months on an unannounced visit. They inspect the gun locker, proper ammunition storage, and the firearm. There are strict laws against owning swords unless they are traditionally hand made Japanese Katanas and a license must be obtained, it is usually illegal to carry any sword or knife in public (unless transporting legitimately).

as for rights; you have no rights. you have privileges. dont believe me? then you must not remember the internment camps, where thousands of law-abiding citizens were shipped off and tortured because of where their ancestors originated. its that sense of entitlement that aggravates the problem. where were their precious "rights", then? when they most needed them, their government took them away.

Not that much skill, especially if you're taking someone by surprise. Most people do not carry guns or, indeed, any kind of conventional weapon. That would be unlikely to change if all guns were outlawed, therefore it's safe to assume that, in terms of actual defense, it wouldn't be that difficult to take someone by surprise.

you dont think it takes skill to hit the right places with the right amount of force? well, granted, it does depend on who you're planning to take by surprise, and just how aware they really are.


And yeah, I'd much rather be bludgeoned by a mace than shot. That sounds awesome.

http://hotdogjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/m80153_mace.jpg


You expect criminals to obey a no-gun-ownership law more than they would obey a don't-murder-people law? All that outlawing guns would accomplish is take away guns from the responsible owners. Oh, and gun casualties would drop, but I bet you'd see a sharp rise in knifings/beatings/poisonings/etc.

All that said, I do wish they'd require a permit, with training courses being necessary to obtain the permit. It's not an unreasonable demand and would not unduly infringe on anyone's "right to bear arms."

no. i expect civilians who are outraged at having to endure such violence to grow a backbone and enforce their desire for a more peaceful environment for themselves and their children. i expect people to get over themselves for just long enough to realize that guns arent necessary to our survival. i expect to make things more difficult for people who seek to do harm to one another, by removing one of the easiest ways to do so.
i dont think youd see that big of a rise in knifings/beatings/poisonings.
most gun-related deaths are very spur-of-the-moment, very hit-and-run. very easy to do, its much easier to sit 10 feet from your target behind a bush and pull a trigger than it is to approach, confront, and acknowledge the utter horror if the act youre perpetrating upon a fellow human being. its easier to flee than it is to look at what youve done. its easier to point a gun at someone than it is to physically wrestle with them to have your way.
most gun-wielding murderers are cowards at heart, that is why they choose guns. they are afraid to lose, afraid to fail. guns offer the assurance of a quick and effective (and easy, did i mention EASY??) way to get what they decide to do, rather than making the person really think about what theyre about to do, and face having to look their victim in the eye as they do it. guns leave little room for thinking, and much more room for impulse. being unable to act on simple, quick impulse would definitely make a difference.

and on a snarky and entirely humorous note: we already bear arms. two of them. at all times. they serve us much more than guns do.

[simneesee]

If you take away guns, which I guarantee is never going to happen, shootings may go down, but stabbings. poisonings, and arrows to the head will increase. As long as someone wants to cause harm, they will cause harm, regardless of what weapon they choose. People will find a way to stab their classmate, to poison their cheating husband, and to mace another gangster. If we're really gonna fantasize here, there might as well be no weapons at all in any way shape or form. What you need to fix is the violent mindset of people, not take away a gun. A gun is just a tool, people always have to pull the trigger. Taking away guns, and then letting citizens "enforce their desire" and deal with those who don't give their guns up will result in chaos and riots.

And most civilians feel at peace with their guns in their nightstand. I felt safer knowing my dad had a gun in the nightstand. Did I feel safer because it was a gun versus a bow and arrow? yes. did my dad ever have to use it? thankfully no. Did my dad ever carry the gun around concealed? no. Would you still take his gun??

I think people with handguns should never get to carry concealed unless they have a permit, at any age.

[Robodl95]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20071223pb.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7257072.stm
"The number of shootings went up by a quarter in a year"

again, refer to that it requires a certain amount of discipline that our culture sure as hell does nothing to put into effect. hell, personal responsibility is a hurtle for americans as it is. my suggestion mostly pertains to more advanced cultures.
If people had discipline then there would be no crime - anywhere. Europe has a much higher crime rate than the US but we have a higher murder rate (mostly because we have a more racially diverse population imo). Like others have asked, if they can't follow the killing law then why will they follow a gun ban? You'd simply be taking the guns away from the honest people who keep one for self defense who then end up getting killed/robbed when someone breaks into their home. Why not work on getting rid of illegal drugs (again look how well that ban worked) which still kills plenty of people and plays a big part in most killings anyway. History has always shown that banning something does not resolve the problem, Prohibition did not solve drunkenness, outlawing certain drugs did not stop their usage, banning guns will not stop violence.

[Mistermook]

Nothing is going to stop violence. That's like saying "We're implementing this law to eliminate rage and jealousy." It's stupid.

What we can do is to design laws to limit certain kinds of violence and implement legislature that acts to eliminate certain underlying causes of violence. I've seen the difference between a knife wound and a bullet wound, and frankly I'm just gonna say that neither one of those things is anything you really want happening to you; but by the same token I'd rather people forced to attack each other with knives than shoot them with guns just because I think it's fair to suggest that it's probably more difficult to get your kung fu on and kill a dozen or more people with a knife in an attack than someone blasting away with an extended clip pistol.

Similarly, I recognize that objectively someone with a high powered hunting rifle both has possible legitimate uses for the weapon and if he or she shoots you they're gonna blow the HELL out of you in a way that someone with a .22 pistol is never going to manage. But a guy carrying around a giant rifle is a guy carrying around a rifle - you know exactly the threat level they present. Maybe they're still capable of shooting you with the rifle, but it's really is going to be a pain in the ass to rob a bank or convenience store with one. And that's the sort of thing you're looking for in legislation.

I can strangle someone or poison them in so many ways that's it's not funny and we're never going to remove those avenues of violence. You can't ban fists because people can beat each other to death. But I can ban concealed weapons and handguns, ban their sale and resale, seize them and destroy them when they're found except for legitimate collectors and such, and by doing that I can slowly decrease people's capability to deal easy, lethal damage at range with limited concealment. Hey, if someone wants to get fancy learning how to use throwing stars as BEST CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERY WEAPON EVER then I'm willing to answer that legislative challenge when it comes to that. Personally I don't see it happening, anymore than I expect the vast majority of people in other parts of the world with handgun bans are truly out there mugging people with swords and bows and arrows. Yes, if someone wants to kill someone those are still options with a handgun ban in place, but without a ban on rifles and shotguns I expect that if they become commonplace you're going to see lots of dead Highlanders littering the 7-11 because a shotgun under the counter is still perfectly reasonable in my book. Tie goes to the defender and all that.

[Nekowolf]

"Someone who wants to shoot up the place isn't going to care no matter the law says about how they can carry, and someone who just wants to responsibly carry around a gun is not going to make any trouble."

The point isn't that they won't do it. That was just an example of how can places enforce a no-firearm policy if they don't even know a person has a firearm? It's like anti-sodomy laws. Sure, they can legislate them, but aside from putting cameras in everyone's bedrooms, how can they possibly enforce it when the simple fact is, they have no idea who's doing it.

[HystericalParoxysm]

They can't. But they can't really enforce it even when there's concealed carry permits issued. You just have to rely on the individuals who carry a gun to look for the signs before they enter somewhere, and to not bring the weapon if there's something saying they can't. Someone who is trying to be a responsible person, carrying it only for protection, is more likely to go along with any bans from individual establishments than someone who just doesn't give a fuck.

I'm not okay with lack of training or permits in general though. Generally with permits come a requirement for a certain amount of training, and information on how to keep a gun relatively safely (locking it up, making sure to not bring it places you shouldn't, etc.). The general population is usually not smart enough to carry guns, and one is much more likely to hurt themselves or others due to doing something stupid accidentally than having a specific negative intention to harm someone.

(I'm not a fan of guns, especially handguns - I don't see a need for an individual to have one. But if it's going to be allowed in the US, it should be done as safely as possible, and those carrying guns should be well-trained in their safety, storage, and proper usage.)

[TRIriana]

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fd20071223pb.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7257072.stm
"The number of shootings went up by a quarter in a year"


Europe has a much higher crime rate than the US but we have a higher murder rate (mostly because we have a more racially diverse population imo).

Could you just clarifiy whether you mean statistically the entirety of Europe has a higher crime rate than one country, that of the US? Or if you mean a particular European country. If you do mean to tally the results of the entirety of Europe, you're including several countries that don't have gun control laws. Also parts of Europe is pretty diverse as well, FYI. ;-)

Also, pretty interesting debate all around. Wisconsin governers seem to be on crack.

[rcranger9]

@SuicidiaParasidia: i agree that people shouldn't have guns, but if we completely take away guns then our military is really useless. we can't only fire mortars and drop bombs when fighting our enemies.

[Tempscire]

japan, for example. very strict gun laws, notice how much gun-related violence goes on there? i dare you to research. so, yes, it is possible, but not without some effort and unity.
The Japanese don't even loot in the face of a terrible natural disaster. :( (Not making an argument, just saying/making an observation about how...shall we say..."tidy" their culture is overall.)

as for rights; you have no rights. you have privileges. ... where were their precious "rights", then? when they most needed them, their government took them away.
Technically and legally, we do have rights. The US Constitution recognizes rights that all humans have; it does not grant them.* One of those rights in the U.S. is bear arms. This does not mean that rights are never infringed upon, but when they are, it's rights being infringed, not privileges being taken away. Many would argue that if more of the civilian populace had been armed, the government would not have been allowed to haul them way, or they would have at least made it more difficult for them to do so. It's my understanding that this is why some gun fans are against licensing and permits, since it creates a record of just who has how many guns in the event of some sort of civil war or advent of 1984-esque crapsack government.

*I don't know enough/anything about the laws of other nations in regards to this concept, but I imagine most of the people posting to this forum are citizens of countries that have signed on to the Geneva Accords, which follow the same principle of recognizing rights held by people everywhere, regardless of what laws are imposed on them.

you dont think it takes skill to hit the right places with the right amount of force? well, granted, it does depend on who you're planning to take by surprise, and just how aware they really are.
It takes skill to be most effective, but I could still mess someone up if, e.g., I sprang out from the bushes with a baseball bat to the face or knee. I've heard an expression about how a weapon you don't know how to use is worse than no weapon at all, but for the average person's skill level in fighting and with an attacker taking the initiative and gaining the element of surprise, I don't think that expression is going to generally be evidenced in that scenario.

Also, hahaha, oh man. I didn't once think of pepper spray. Too much Game of Thrones for me, then. :lol:

no. i expect civilians who are outraged at having to endure such violence to grow a backbone and enforce their desire for a more peaceful environment for themselves and their children.
How will they enforce anything? More laws, that criminals-- by definition-- do not follow? Taxes and fees? Social shame? I mean, the latter has worked for smoking, but then, smoking used to be cool. Murder has never been.

i expect people to get over themselves for just long enough to realize that guns arent necessary to our survival.
The Sims isn't necessary to our survival. No, better analogy: gardening is not necessary to our survival. I could go my entire life without ever needing to grow my own food to eat. I might someday kill someone with my trowel and pitchfork and shears and hedge clippers, and then use my shovel to bury their body. Ban gardening! Swimming pools, unnecessary luxury items that they are, kill more kids per year than guns-- ban swimming pools!

i expect to make things more difficult for people who seek to do harm to one another, by removing one of the easiest ways to do so.
Except the people who seek to do harm via guns aren't going to be compliant or deterred by a banning effort. You may cut down on, say, husbands shooting their wives and their wives' lovers in a fit of rage, but then we get back to the idea of grabbing the lamp and start swinging.

... approach, confront, and acknowledge the utter horror if the act youre perpetrating upon a fellow human being. its easier to flee than it is to look at what youve done. ... most gun-wielding murderers are cowards at heart, that is why they choose guns. they are afraid to lose, afraid to fail. ... rather than making the person really think about what theyre about to do, and face having to look their victim in the eye as they do it.
I agree with your overall point about impulse and ease of action, but I think you aren't giving enough credit to the gun-wielders of the world. What about the ones who get in gun fights at close range? Kill their victim execution-style? Have been shot themselves? Besides, people have been killing each other for yonks even before guns were invented, up close and personal. But then again, people used to be a lot less far-removed from the nitty-gritty of life in general. Also, for the record, it's not that easy to use a gun, either, and you're nuts if you think there isn't skill involved. You have to be increasing levels of good to hit moving targets and/or hit targets from farther away.

Which is not even getting into the gun hobbyists who just like to shoot paper targets and clay doves, for whom cowardice doesn't even enter into the equation. Some people like to hunt, and many of them do eat what they kill. Sure, they could buy meat at the store, but then, gardeners could buy veggies, too. The majority of gun-owners do not kill other people-- why should their particular hobby be forbidden? Especially if archery is still acceptable in your hypothetical gun-free world (though modern archery is much easier than it was hundreds of years ago, naturally).

[Robodl95]

Could you just clarifiy whether you mean statistically the entirety of Europe has a higher crime rate than one country, that of the US? Or if you mean a particular European country. If you do mean to tally the results of the entirety of Europe, you're including several countries that don't have gun control laws. Also parts of Europe is pretty diverse as well, FYI. ;-)

Here are Interpol 2001 crime statistics (rate per 100,000):
* 4161 – US
* 7736 – Germany
* 6941 – France
* 9927 – England and Wales
Source: http://www.tinyvital.com/blog/2003/7/26/american-vs-european-crime-rates/ England has over double the crime as the US

Another interesting thing is that our homicide rate has fallen dramatically in the last 30 years.
Homicide Rate/100,000 by Date in US:
* 1980 – 10.2
* 2000 – 5.5

[missroxor]

I don't see why a gun free society is considered such a stretch of the imagination. The UK isn't completely free of guns and our system isn't perfect but we have very strict gun and general offensive weapon laws (http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/weaponscrime/weaponsandthelaw) which keep their use to a minimum and I think it works quite well. The military use guns but how and when they are allowed to use them is strictly controlled. Same with the police: there are special police who are allowed to be armed, most police do not carry firearms...and somehow they're still able to fight crime :blink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom[/url]) ]The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. The overall homicide rate is also low. In England and Wales (the most populous part of the United Kingdom) the rate is below the EU average, about four times lower than that of the United States but on almost the same level as in Canada.[1] Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm

Gun crimes still happen in the UK and criminals still get hold of guns but in my experience when gun crimes happen they tend to be shocking and alien to your average Brit (and I spent the first 14 years of my life in one of the roughest areas of Glasgow!) whereas in America in my experience gun crime is literally an everyday occurence and a lot of people seem kind of blasé about it. (Maybe that's just where I live now) :/ I hope I never see the day Brits as a whole become desensitised to brutality and death. I personally think it's kinda crazy to allow everybody and anybody ownership in the hope that everyone has the maturity, responsibility and sanity to use it (or not use it) properly.

Robodl I don't see how that proves anything since it only mentions crime and doesn't specify which crimes have been taken into account. Perhaps Britains numbers are so high because they took into account all the millions of ASBOs doled out to all the chavs but America doesn't (to my knowledge) have ASBOs (or chavs?) so it's not a fair comparison ;) I tried to follow the link to where the author said they got their numbers from but it doesn't work for me. Of course, my wikipedia link could be wrong....I'm having a little look around to see if I can find some actual (reliable) numbers of gun crime rates to compare.

EDIT: Another interesting thing is that our homicide rate has fallen dramatically in the last 30 years.
Those numbers only show that the rate dropped in the 20 years between 1980 and 2000, it doesn't mention the last 11 years.

[TRIriana]

Robodl, I don't think that source is particularly credible; for a start, most of it seems to be aimed at blaming ethnic minorities for crime, and the reference links don't work. I agree with missroxor; and would like to add this has a fairly good breakdown for the most recent UK stuff: Home Office Crime Rates (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0611/hosb0611?view=Binary).

Looking at this, the UK has 7616 firearms offences total in 2010. That's not 7616 per 100,000, either. That's 7616 period.

This is versus the American rate from the Bureau of Justice Statistics here (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm). Unfortunately it doesn't go to 2010, but in 2006, the most recent year, it's just below 400,000.

Even as a percentage of the population, it's pretty clear that America has far, far more gun crime than the UK. And I suspect checking other EU countries would show similar correlations; when guns are banned to the general populace, gun crime falls. It's just common sense. It's harder to commit a crime with something you don't have.

[missroxor]

Thanks to TRIana I can stop my search, good find ;) I did come across the below however which although is not specific to gun crime, is a slightly narrower comparison than just “crime” as discussed above. There’s no telling what the factors were but imo I think our stricter gun and knife laws had to have played a big role in our reduced numbers.

Intentional homicide, rate per 100,000 population

Great Britain v US (does not include NI as they have different laws to Great Britain inc more relaxed attitude to gun ownership)

Year - 03 04 05 06 07
GB - 3.9 4.3 3.4 3.8 3.6
US - 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5

*2008 statistics were not complete for Scotland so I didn’t include them.

Source= Trends 2003-2008 doc of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html)

[Mistermook]

That's why I go after handguns. I think a total weapons ban in the US would find itself completely unattainable, but maybe, just maybe you could lump handguns into the automatic weapons category and see the same sort of drastic reduction over time in gun violence, essentially because you're increasing the opportunity cost for shooting people to "must be willing to transport to target with rifle or shotgun." It's not an incredible increase in opportunity cost. You'd still have hunting accidents. I still want cops with pistols. But I think it would slowing increase the cost/risk for the average criminal to where maybe you'd have them occasionally going "Man, I can't do this crime because pistols are EXPENSIVE" along with "maybe I should try to learn how to use these throwing stars things, because there's no way in hell I'm ever going to be able to get a pistol."

[ElementMK]

I'm against gun ownership, but for nuclear legalization. Handguns are hardly a deterrent when compared to a hydrogen bomb sitting in your kitchen.

[Segagrey]

Lord would that be bad ass. Sword wielding, throwing star using cops and criminals. I say lets go for the ban, then we can be just like the society in Ultraviolet. It wouldn't stop crime, but it would certainly make it a more interesting. Imagine how bad ass everyday people would be forced to become. Sorry deranged derelict, my 23 inch katana says you can't mug me today.

Seriously though, a ban on guns would only ruin things for the good, honest enthusiasts. Never is it the instrument. It's always the artist. Taking away the instrument won't do anything, it'll only spur the artist to find another tool to finish what he started. All you can do is educate and inform. However, I do agree with Mook. Maybe not so much as a ban, but maybe a graduated crack down. Limit who can have them, then limit why those who can, should have them. Stipulate. I don't think a complete gun ban is impossible, but I do think it's too abstract of a proposition currently. Maybe once we mature as a society, and establish true equality within our union. Until then, kitchen occupying hydrogen bombs sound like a novel idea.

[Mistermook]

I'm not suggesting cops get rid of pistols and I'm not suggesting that dedicated gun enthusiasts who just want collectables to go along with horrendously expensive collector's licenses shouldn't have pistols. I'm saying that the problem with handguns, in specific to handguns, is their ability to be concealed and portability. That's absolutely the fault of the instrument, the same way that a spray can of paint is a different level of threat for graffiti than a ballpoint pen or a small brush loaded with oil paints. True, a dedicated killer (or artist) will be able to get the same sort of end from either one. I don't care about the dedicated, earnest sorts of gun crimes. I want to kill handguns specifically to remove those gun crimes that are made most possible by that portability, that ability to shove in a waistband and walk into a business without anyone realizing that you've got a gun. Yes, people will move to committing more crimes with rifles and shotguns (and katanas and overly tight pants? Who knows?) but I think that that's still preferable to the handgun because of all the "undecided" criminals out there - the people who want a gun for the possibility to commit a crime but who aren't committed risking the consequences of wandering around with an overt loaded weapon.

And yeah, that absolutely includes all the unhinged folks who want .44s for "self defense" weapons to tuck in their purses. I don't want citizens killing each other by accident that way, and I don't even want citizens killing criminals if they can help it. I certainly don't feel like the nation has a legal obligation to make it easier for private citizens to kill each other for any reason, legitimate self defense or not. The lady carting around the shotgun will make her position on self-defense quite clear too, and I won't have to worry about her concealed gun going on in the supermarket while she's fishing for her keys. The shotgun might still be a threat, but at least everyone can vaguely try to stay away from the hot end of the thing, right?

[Kathwynn]

here is my new two cents.. This country was settled by the gun.. The Gun has a long and storied history.. Second point.. Historical fact the one that first pushed for strict gun laws was the mob.. 1890 or so..

The bad guys got tired of breaking in to a house and getting shot.

The cops signed as they were tired of random civilians joining in a gunfight.... This was New York City..

My other point is this.. The only people you criminalize by outlawing guns are the good citizens for wanting to exercise their Constitutional right. The bad guys are already criminals and do not care how many laws are passed.

I say good going Wisconsin.

[Mistermook]

The country was founded by shooting British people, owning slaves, extreme racial divides, and opium was still something everyone did for fun.

If your only sustaining argument is "this is how we used to do things" then you're making an incredibly lame argument.

[pinketamine]

I am myself surprised by this news. Seriously, allowing people to carry guns without any kind of permit/training sounds a potentially dangerous idea to me and, honestly, I can't find any advantage for this measure.

I would not say that guns need to be outlawed, but those things kill, so I think that it would be good to have some control about which kind of people can have fire arms. Without any training, people could still kill or harm each other (or themselves) by accident, so I think that asking for some requirements makes absolute sense.

here is my new two cents.. This country was settled by the gun.. The Gun has a long and storied history.. Second point.. Historical fact the one that first pushed for strict gun laws was the mob.. 1890 or so..

The bad guys got tired of breaking in to a house and getting shot.

The cops signed as they were tired of random civilians joining in a gunfight.... This was New York City..

My other point is this.. The only people you criminalize by outlawing guns are the good citizens for wanting to exercise their Constitutional right. The bad guys are already criminals and do not care how many laws are passed.

I say good going Wisconsin.

I guess that "good citizens" will not mind getting some kind of permit. Good citizens will keep things legal, so if a permit is required they will get it.
Also, I have always found that using tradition as an argument does not really make sense. As an example, ablation and other genital mutilations are a tradition in some countries and I don't think that makes them less bad.

[Nekowolf]

*WARNING: Constitutional interpretation ahead*

You say it's a Constitutional right. And you are right about that. However, it does not state the context nor breadth to which legislation may encompass. While, yes, you have the right to own a gun, it does not mean that it cannot be without restriction. Even one of our greatest rights, the freedom of speech, is not without some restriction. The Constitution says, essentially, the right is available, but it is we (or rather, Supreme Court) who interprets the extent. So gun control and heavy restriction on gun ownership, in my opinion, does not impede the Constitution as the right to bear firearms is still there.

Furthermore, yes, criminals do not care about laws. However, that ignores that those very laws may make it more difficult for those criminals, as well as, if done right, being easier to trace back to them.

Also, I totally agree with Mistermook.

[Segagrey]

How can you blame the instrument when it's nothing but? A brush on it's own won't make a masterpiece. A set of violins won't get up and decide to write a symphony. A gun doesn't decide to tuck itself in your pants, so it can hold up a bank. What you've got to look at is the underlying causes of gun violence, and take a look at solving that. Sure you take away a means, but it's not like people haven't been finding other ways to kill people before guns came into the picture. Yes it's unrealistic like you said to try and eliminate the base of the cause, but in truth it's the only way you'd be able to completely remove our selves of its detrimental effects.

An SMG can be concealed relatively easy if you're creative enough, and it'll do way more damage than a handgun ever could. Prohibition didn't stop drinking. A ban on cigarettes wouldn't stop smoking. People still smoke weed. Kids still drink underage. It'll only make it hard for people who enjoy it, and encourage people who abuse it to abuse it more. It's simply the nature of our society. People don't respect the law...they either grudgingly obey it, avoid it, or ignore it.

The real problem is that we glorify guns and violence. We show people "Yes, this is how you solve your problems and avoid the bullshit. This is how you get things done." It's the same with alcohol and smoking. Stop making these things 'cool' and you eliminate the fascination for them.

[Mistermook]

Oh bullshit. Japan's got the craziest crap imaginable in some of their media, from tentacle sex to ninja zombies and believe it or not I'm completely unaware of how this has translated to people screwing each other with octopi and dressing up their corpses in black. Glorification is a cop-out. Personal responsibility is a cop-out. You're supposed to behave yourself and be a good citizen regardless of what the media tells you too, and if you're suggesting the only reason Americans manage to shoot each other with pistols so often is because of Clint Eastwood movies then I say again: Bullshit.

Kids do still drink while underage. They cannot, however, legally do so. They can't walk into a bar and tell the bartender that they and the rest of the 6th grade class with them would like a scotch. That's how the law is supposed to work. It's not a blanket that you cast over an activity that makes it impossible to commit a crime, it's a situation of placing legal hurdles and punishments to dissuade people from certain behaviors and nothing more. Saying "the law doesn't do this thing that it was not designed to do" is a straw man. You want to limit mankind's baser instincts? Maybe there's something out there to do that - Oprah or something, but it's not the law. The law is about making things harder to do that the government doesn't want you to do, and punishing you for doing them anyways.

I'm not suggesting that my proposed ban on handguns would stop people killing each other. I just want to make it more difficult for people to kill each other with handguns, because people kill each other with handguns in specific ways that I think are specifically more dangerous to society than all of the (sword, shotgun, bazooka, SMG, whatever) other things people can and do kill each other with that are part of the concern of legislatures. I fully admit that if another avenue of killing people became more popular I'd be chasing that down for a similar ban. Laws for good behavior are band-aids, they are not assurances that people won't just work around the fix and I'm fine with that. That's the whole reason we have legislatures, to continually adapt the law for changing situations and circumstances.

SMGs are indeed very dangerous weapons that have potentially dangerous possibilities related to concealment. That's why they're banned or heavily regulated nearly everywhere. People did indeed manage to kill each other with rocks and sharp sticks, probably before we even had invented fire. But pardon me if I present that an automatic handgun is a weapon with an order of magnitudes more potential lethality than your heavy rock, that equating the two things as equal is like suggesting that people can burn themselves on a sunny day and that's the same thing as walking through a blast furnace.

[Segagrey]

Glorification is a cop-out. Personal responsibility is a cop-out. You're supposed to behave yourself and be a good citizen regardless of what the media tells you too, and if you're suggesting the only reason Americans manage to shoot each other with pistols so often is because of Clint Eastwood movies then I say again: Bullshit.

The glorification of guns creates fascination, subsequently desire. Desire to own, desire to use. I didn't say it was the cause, I simply pointed out that it's another problem that is an unnecessary contributor. You underestimate the power of the media...the ever tightening grip it has on this country. So many use it as a basis to live their lives and a reference to how it should be. It's completely ridiculous, but it's the reality of our society. I'm just trying to say: the gun is just a tool, it takes someone to use that tool for it to do anything. Taking the gun away helps nothing. You've still got people out there desperate to hurt, desperate to kill. You've still got Joe the misguided teen that joined a gang and is going to rob a liquor store owner to get money for his pregnant 16 year old girlfriend. I'm saying Joe is impressionable. I'm saying Joe is human.

This is completely about personal responsibility. I have the freedom of speech, but I also have the social and personal responsibility of not infringing upon the rights/beliefs of my fellow Americans. I have the freedom to bear arms, but I have the responsibility to use those arms responsibly and wisely. Why should I be punished be cause someone decided not to? I feel like I need to say responsibillity again, because I barely used it in this paragraph. Responsibility.

SMGs are indeed very dangerous weapons that have potentially dangerous possibilities related to concealment. That's why they're banned or heavily regulated nearly everywhere. People did indeed manage to kill each other with rocks and sharp sticks, probably before we even had invented fire. But pardon me if I present that an automatic handgun is a weapon with an order of magnitudes more potential lethality than your heavy rock, that equating the two things as equal is like suggesting that people can burn themselves on a sunny day and that's the same thing as walking through a blast furnace.

No, shooting someone isn't equatable to bludgeoning them with a dead squirrel. But if they feel like it, they're gonna beat the crap outta someone with a dead squirrel whether they have the choice to use a gun or not.

I fully admit that if another avenue of killing people became more popular I'd be chasing that down for a similar ban. Laws for good behavior are band-aids, they are not assurances that people won't just work around the fix and I'm fine with that. That's the whole reason we have legislatures, to continually adapt the law for changing situations and circumstances.

That's exactly what I've been saying. It'll only cover the issue. We can't keep sliding things under the rug and leaving them at that. What's the point if that's the end result? You're just inconveniencing the innocent, the honest. Video Games are blamed for all kinds of things, but taking them away would solve nothing. If that's the case, why take them away if it'll just ruin it for gamers and not stop what it's intended? Why should I lose what I love, because someone decided to abuse it? it just seems so illogical. We can't solve our problems, so we just turn our heads and let the government band-aid it. That is what's bullshit.

I understand full-well what you mean, and I completely agree with you in some areas. I'm just saying let's go after the real problems, the real contributors. We as citizens have to be responsible. We can't let the government solve everything for us. Besides take away guns, and we'll be fucked for the zombie apocalypse D:

[Kathwynn]

A gun is ultimately a tool.. It neither think, feels, or forms an opinion. To outright outlaw guns and ban them has never worked in this country.. As for those poster who have a problem with people carrying a gun.. Deal with this fact for a moment.. A watermelon can kill as can an icicle or a screw driver.. And even a nail gun.. Are to outlaw and ban each because each can and has been used to kill people?

The short answer is no. Why, because each is a tool, food, or occurs in nature. A gun is a tool. Its purpose can be used to hunt.. Yes in some parts of the country hunting is still part of life. Range shooting. Both for competition and recreation. People also collect weapons as well. From as far back 1300 or 1400's when the first crude hand weapons were made.

However here in America the colonists and later those who went west took along the best tool they had in both hunting and defense. Today the rifles, hand guns are still here. Outlawing them has never made sense when the underlying causes for people to use them has never been adequately addressed. Crime happens. people need to defend themselves.. A few quick course in self defense at the local YMCA, while it may make you feel good, is no defense against a person willing to shoot you.

Having lived in some of the worse crime ridden area in this country. The few times that I carried a pistol or a hand weapon. I would rather have had the comforting feel of a pistol on my hip. Than be with out and run into trouble that I could not either run fast enough to escape or avoid. That is brutal reality.

And before any one ask I am a moderate liberal. Libertarian. And No I do not currently own a gun. But want to retain the right if I feel so inclined to do so.

Also for the above poster.. When the zombie apocalypse does come I know a few friends that almost quite literally have armories .. So I figure I am good.. LOL

[Mistermook]

People have been killing each other since before we first harnessed fire.

If you guys want to address the underlying causes before taking some sort of practical steps, that's all well and good but in the meantime people are dying. Seriously, it's like you want some sort of kumbayah moment where we all shrug it off and realize, "Golly guys! This murder thing is the pits! We better stop it before someone gets hurt!"

That's a lovely sentiment, but again, with much restraint, it's a bullshit sentiment. Laws can't make people nice and not want to kill each other - or at least I can't imagine one. If you two geniuses with the "underlying causes" support would care to just sketch out a plan that would keep me from wanting to murder people on the freeway, or at the grocery store, or the neighbors, or wherever even that's not going to shove government in an enormous way straight up my ass I hope the two of you get the richly deserved Nobel prizes you're gunning for. Personally though, I'm just as happy with the idea that even though I have these aggressive thoughts it's no one's business until I actually whip out the machinegun and go for broke. I mean, there's making people happier and knowing that happy people don't usually flush it all away and then there's "we can't protect ourselves from accidents and devoted criminals, because we're so full of new age 'friends' crap that we can't be bothered to legislate away dangerous stuff."

[Segagrey]

Now you get it! Oooh! ohh! After the kumbayah moment I was thinking maybe we could run through the hills, singing peace songs and making flower crowns. (Daisies and asiatic lilies are preferable.)

No, lol, we're essentially saying people have a right to carry a gun. Resorting to a ban wouldn't be as effective in truth, and most likely impossible to achieve currently; Given the state of our society. Which...is almost exactly what you've been saying. o.O

And since when has solving the underlying causes of an issue not help fix it? Because just patching something over and saying "Yea this is probably not gonna work. But Shit happens." has definitely got things done.

Americans have a right to enjoy their pursuits, regardless of bad apples that abuse them. Obvious argument twisting is obvious.

[Nekowolf]

The funny thing is that just how much of a "right" is still debatable and always will be. The First Amendment is pretty clear on the subject. The Second is not. So you cannot say people have the "right to enjoy their pursuits" (which, in this case, either must specifically apply to gun ownership or it is irrelevant to the argument) without having to interpret the Second Amendment in a specific way, an interpretation that can easily be argued over. Like I said before, you could have very strict gun laws, but still be within the right to bear arms, and if you want to get even more technical on the language, it could be interpreted that that doesn't even specifically apply to firearms, as "arms" is a term for wielding "weapons in general." But I personally don't go that far, merely that it's possible.

[Segagrey]

Hmm? no, I meant in general. Like: "we have a right to live" or "I have a right to know".

But yea, back on track. I personally don't agree with the committee's decision. What logical, decent reason could anyone ever give to want to conceal their compensation stick, besides for protection? Generally, my presents come wrapped, and not with clips full of lead. That's just me though.

[Nekowolf]

Oh, my bad then.

[Tempscire]

Just to throw this out there:

Wisconsin is in the process of becoming what's referred to as a "shall issue" state, shifting away from being a "no issue" state (no issue meaning no one is allowed to carry concealed). Only 8 or 9 states were "shall issue" in 1985; today, 36 states are shall issue (and that's not counting may issue and unrestricted states). In this same time period, we've also not seen a radical increase in violent crime (it has, in fact, decreased). Let me note that I'm not trying to imply causation here, but rather try to dissociate gun-carrying from crime increases.

I also happened to come across this article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece) from 2005, which notes:
Violent crime has doubled in Scotland over the past 20 years... The attacks have been fuelled by a “booze and blades” culture in the west of Scotland... The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.

[Tony97]

YAAAAA!! THATS MY STATE WHOHOO! I can finally feel safe walking the streets of... Milwaukee, and my home for that matter!